A decision-analytic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening programs

Cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening strategy for colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Though one-size-fits-all age-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality, the evidence regarding on personized screening based on individual risk factors has been growing. The study aimed to perform a systematic review to synthesize economic evidence of risk-tailored CRC screening strategies.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Econlit, and National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database from inception to June 30, 2021. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per life year or quality-adjusted life year gained for the risk-tailored screening compared with no screening or uniform screening. A strategy was cost-effective with less cost and equal or more effectiveness than the comparator along with lower ICER than the willingness-to-pay threshold.

RESULTS

Our review finally comprised seven studies. Five studies reported the results of comparisons of risk-tailored CRC screening with no screening, and supported that risk-tailored screening was cost-effective. All of seven studies reported the ICERs of risk-tailored screening and age-based screening. Disparities in the discrimination of risk-prediction tool, accuracy of adopted techniques, uptake rate of screening and cost estimation impacted the cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies on the economic evaluation of risk-tailored CRC screening are limited, and current evidence is not sufficient to support the replacement of risk-tailored screening for traditional age-based screening.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.

METHODS

Eight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.

CONCLUSION

At 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Is Colorectal Cancer Screening Appropriate in Nigeria?

PURPOSE

The global burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, largely driven by increasing incidence and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Nigeria.

METHODS

We used the Wilson-Jungner framework (1968) to review the literature relevant to CRC screening in Nigeria and propose areas for future research and investment.

RESULTS

Screening is effective when the condition sought is both important and treatable within the system under evaluation. The incidence of CRC is likely increasing, although the exact burden of disease in Nigeria remains poorly understood and access to definitive diagnosis and treatment has not been systematically quantified. In high-income countries (HICs), CRC screening builds on a well-known natural history. In Nigeria, a higher proportion of CRC seems to demonstrate microsatellite instability, which is dissimilar to the molecular profile in HICs. Prospective trials, tissue banking, and next-generation sequencing should be leveraged to better understand these potential differences and the implications for screening. Fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT) is recommended for LMICs that are considering CRC screening. However, FIT has not been validated in Nigeria, and questions about the impact of high ambient temperature, endemic parasitic infection, and feasibility remain unanswered. Prospective trials are needed to validate the efficacy of stool-based screening, and these trials should consider concomitant ova and parasite testing.

CONCLUSION

Using the Wilson-Jungner framework, additional work is needed before organized CRC screening will be effective in Nigeria. These deficits can be addressed without missing the window to mitigate the increasing burden of CRC in the medium to long term.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted, Personalized Risk Information to Increase Appropriate Screening by First-Degree Relatives of People With Colorectal Cancer

Background. Economic evaluations are less commonly applied to implementation interventions compared to clinical interventions. The efficacy of an implementation strategy to improve adherence to screening guidelines among first-degree relatives of people with colorectal cancer was recently evaluated in a randomized-controlled trial. Using these trial data, we examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the intervention from societal and health care funder perspectives. Method. In this prospective, trial-based evaluation, mean costs, and outcomes were calculated. The primary outcome of the trial was the proportion of participants who had screening tests in the year following the intervention commensurate with their risk category. Quality-adjusted life years were included as secondary outcomes. Intervention costs were determined from trial records. Standard Australian unit costs for 2016/2017 were applied. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net benefit framework. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to calculate uncertainty intervals (UIs) around the costs and the incremental net monetary benefit statistic. Results. Compared with usual care, mean health sector costs were $17 (95% UI [$14, $24]) higher for those receiving the intervention. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the primary trial outcome was calculated to be $258 (95% UI [$184, $441]) per additional person appropriately screened. The significant difference in adherence to screening guidelines between the usual care and intervention groups did not translate into a mean quality-adjusted life year difference. Discussion. Providing information on both the costs and outcomes of implementation interventions is important to inform public health care investment decisions. Challenges in the application of cost-utility analysis hampered the interpretation of results and potentially underestimated the value of the intervention. Further research in the form of a modeled extrapolation of the intermediate increased adherence effect and distributional cost-effectiveness to include equity requirements is warranted.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals.

METHODS

Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations.

RESULTS

Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Recent diagnostic procedures for colorectal cancer screening: Are they cost-effective?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cause of death. Reduction in mortality rates in some countries worldwide are most likely ascribed to CRC screening and/or improved treatments. We reviewed the most relevant articles which discuss the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening procedures, in particular, the recent ones through the last eight years. The effectiveness of screening estimated by discounted life years gained (LYGs) compared to no screening, differed considerably between the studies. Despite these differences, all studies consistently emphasized that screening for CRC was cost-effective compared with no screening for each of the recognized screening strategies. Newer technologies for colorectal cancer screening, including computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA test, and Pillcam Colon are less invasive and accurate, however, they are not cost-effective, as their cost was higher than all other established screening strategies. When compliance and adherence to such new techniques are increased more than the established strategies they would be more cost-effective particularly CTC.

Colonoscopic surveillance - a cost-effective method to prevent hereditary and familial colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 20-30% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases may have a familial contribution. The family history of CRC can be prominent (e.g., hereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC)) or more moderate (e.g., familial colorectal cancer (FCRC)). For family members at risk, colonoscopic surveillance is a well-established method to prevent both HCRC and FCRC, although the evidence for the exact procedures of the surveillance is limited. Surveillance can come at a high price if individuals are frequently examined, as this may result in unnecessary colonoscopies in relation to actual risk for CRC. This study analyses the cost-effectiveness of a surveillance programme implemented in the Northern Sweden Health Care Region.

METHODS

The study includes 259 individuals prospectively recorded in the colonoscopic surveillance programme registry at the Cancer Prevention Clinic, Umeå University Hospital. We performed a cost-utility analysis with a contrafactual design: we compared observed costs and loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) due to CRC with the surveillance programme to an expected outcome without surveillance. The main measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between surveillance and non-surveillance. Scenario analysis was used to explore uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER between surveillance and non-surveillance in the base model was 3596€/QALY. The ICER varied from -4620€ in the best-case scenario to 33,779€ in the worst-case scenario.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopic surveillance is a very cost-effective method to prevent HCRC and FCRC compared to current thresholds for cost-effectiveness and other cancer preventive interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative colonoscopy surveillance strategies to mitigate metachronous colorectal cancer incidence

BACKGROUND

The incidence of metachronous colorectal cancer (MCRC) among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors varies significantly, and the optimal colonoscopy surveillance practice for mitigating MCRC incidence is unknown.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was used to compare the performances of the US Multi-Society Task Force guideline and all clinically reasonable colonoscopy surveillance strategies for 50- to 79-year-old posttreatment CRC patients with a computer simulation model.

RESULTS

The US guideline [(1,3,5)] recommends the first colonoscopy 1 year after treatment, whereas the second and third colonoscopies are to be repeated at 3- and 5-year intervals. Some promising alternative cost-effective strategies were identified. In comparison with the US guideline, under various scenarios for a 20-year period, 1) reducing the surveillance interval of the guideline after the first colonoscopy by 1 year [(1,2,5)] would save up to 78 discounted life-years (LYs) and prevent 23 MCRCs per 1000 patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ≤ $23,270/LY), 2) reducing the intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopies by 1 year [(1,2,4)] would save/prevent up to 109 discounted LYs and 36 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $52,155/LY), and 3) reducing the surveillance intervals after the first and second negative colonoscopy by 1 and 2 years [(1,2,3)] would save/prevent up to 141 discounted LYs and 50 MCRCs (ICER ≤ $63,822/LY). These strategies would require up to 1100 additional colonoscopies per 1000 patients. Although the US guideline might not be cost-effective in comparison with a less intensive oncology guideline [(3,3,5); the ICER could be as high as $140,000/LY], the promising strategies would be cost-effective in comparison with such less intensive guidelines unless the cumulative MCRC incidence were very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The US guideline might be improved by a slight increase in the surveillance intensity at the expense of moderately increased cost. More research is warranted to explore the benefits/harms of such practices. Cancer 2016;122:2560-70. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies

BACKGROUND

Several screening tests are available to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. The purpose of this review was to determine how current CRC screening strategies for CRC compare with no screening and whether agreement exists with regard to the cost effectiveness of different strategies.

METHODS

Databases were searched for cost-effectiveness analyses focused on CRC screening strategies in the United States and published between May 2007 and February 2014. We analyzed the uses of fecal occult blood, fecal immunochemistry, and stool DNA tests, as well as sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and virtual colonoscopy. A paired comparison of each screening strategy with no screening across each of the studies reviewed was conducted. A series of paired comparisons of the results reported in each of the studies is also included.

RESULTS

When compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies evaluated in this review were cost effective. There was disagreement as to which screening strategy was the most cost effective. However, sigmoidoscopy combined with fecal blood testing always dominated either strategy alone. Studies comparing colonoscopy with fecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or both had mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with no screening, all CRC screening strategies are more cost effective. Study results disagree as to which screening strategy should be the preferred method.

Screening strategies for colorectal cancer among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and family history

Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at higher risks but how they should be screened remains uncertain. Hence, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening among patients with NAFLD and family history by different strategies. A hypothetical population of 100,000 subjects aged 40-75 years receive: (i) yearly fecal immunochemical test (FIT) at 50 years; (ii) flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) every 5 years at 50 years; (iii) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years; (iv) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without; (v) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and yearly FIT at 50 years among those without and (vi) colonoscopy 10 yearly at 40 years among those with family history/NAFLD and colonoscopy 10 yearly at 50 years among those without. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was studied by Markov modeling. It was found that colonoscopy, FS and FIT reduced incidence of CRC by 49.5, 26.3 and 23.6%, respectively. Using strategies 4, 5 and 6, the corresponding reduction in CRC incidence was 29.9, 30.9 and 69.3% for family history, and 33.2, 34.7 and 69.8% for NAFLD. Compared with no screening, strategies 4 (US$1,018/life-year saved) and 5 (US$7,485) for family history offered the lowest ICER, whilst strategy 4 (US$5,877) for NAFLD was the most cost-effective. These findings were robust when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case. These indicated that screening patients with family history or NAFLD by colonoscopy at 50 years was economically favorable.

The impact of stratifying by family history in colorectal cancer screening programs

In the province-wide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in Ontario, Canada, individuals with a family history of CRC are offered colonoscopy screening and those without are offered guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT, Hemoccult II). We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the cumulative number of CRC deaths prevented and colonoscopies performed between 2008 and 2038 with this family history-based screening program, compared to a regular gFOBT program. In both programs, we assumed screening uptake increased from 30% (participation level in 2008 before the program was launched) to 60%. We assumed that 11% of the population had a family history, defined as having at least one first-degree relative diagnosed with CRC. The programs offered screening between age 50 and 74 years, every two years for gFOBT, and every ten years for colonoscopy. Compared to opportunistic screening (2008 participation level kept constant at 30%), the gFOBT program cumulatively prevented 6,700 more CRC deaths and required 570,000 additional colonoscopies by 2038. The family history-based screening program increased these numbers to 9,300 and 1,100,000, a 40% and 93% increase, respectively. If biennial gFOBT was replaced with biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), annual Hemoccult Sensa or five-yearly sigmoidoscopy screening, both the added benefits and colonoscopies required would decrease. A biennial gFOBT screening program that identifies individuals with a family history of CRC and recommends them to undergo colonoscopy screening would prevent 40% (range in sensitivity analyses: 20-51%) additional deaths while requiring 93% (range: 43-116%) additional colonoscopies, compared to a regular gFOBT screening program.

Modeling and validating the cost and clinical pathway of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The estimated costs of CRC treatment vary considerably, and if CRC costs in a model are based on empirically estimated total costs of stage I, II, III, or IV treatments, then they lack some flexibility to capture future changes in CRC treatment. The purpose was 1) to describe how to model CRC costs and survival and 2) to validate the model in a transparent and reproducible way.

METHODS

We applied a semi-Markov model with 70 health states and tracked age and time since specific health states (using tunnels and 3-dimensional data matrix). The model parameters are based on an observational study at Oslo University Hospital (2049 CRC patients), the National Patient Register, literature, and expert opinion. The target population was patients diagnosed with CRC. The model followed the patients diagnosed with CRC from the age of 70 until death or 100 years. The study focused on the perspective of health care payers.

RESULTS

The model was validated for face validity, internal and external validity, and cross-validity. The validation showed a satisfactory match with other models and empirical estimates for both cost and survival time, without any preceding calibration of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The model can be used to 1) address a range of CRC-related themes (general model) like survival and evaluation of the cost of treatment and prevention measures; 2) make predictions from intermediate to final outcomes; 3) estimate changes in resource use and costs due to changing guidelines; and 4) adjust for future changes in treatment and trends over time. The model is adaptable to other populations.

Familial colorectal cancer: a review

Familial colorectal cancer constitutes a heterogeneous group of patients in whom the underlying molecular mechanism is still unknown. Predisposition to a such neoplasms in this setting seems to be due to common low-penetrance genetic components, but the role of genetic testing in clinical practice has to be determined. Although screening guidelines in this moderate-risk population are empiric, data obtained in epidemiologic, meta-analyses and cohort studies and, more recently, the increased risk of advanced adenomas in first degree relatives who underwent screening colonoscopy support the need to include these individuals in specific screening programs. However, data to determine what test to use, how often to use and which organizational strategy to implement are needed. At present, screening uptake in this population is less than optimal; offering the opportunity to access to screening and improving screening uptake is a first significant step.

Cost-effectiveness of family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia

Background

With 14.234 diagnoses and over 4047 deaths reported in 2007, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer and second most common cause of cancer-related mortality in Australia. The direct treatment cost has recently been estimated to be around AU$1.2 billion for the year 2011, which corresponds to a four-fold increase, compared the cost reported in 2001. Excluding CRCs due to known rare genetic disorders, 20% to 25% of all CRCs occur in a familial aggregation setting due to genetic variants or shared environmental risk factors that are yet to be characterised. A targeted screening strategy addressed to this segment of the population is a potentially valuable tool for reducing the overall burden of CRC.

Methods

We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of three screening strategies offered to people at increased risk due to a strong family history of CRC. The model simulated the evolution of a cohort of 10,000 individuals from age 50 to 90 years. We compared screening with biennial iFOBT, five-yearly colonoscopy and ten-yearly colonoscopy versus the current strategy of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (i.e. base case).

Results

Under the NBCSP scenario, 6,491 persons developed CRC with an average screening lifetime cost of AU$3,441 per person. In comparison, screening with biennial iFOBT, colonoscopy every ten years, and colonoscopy every five years reduced CRC incidence by 27%, 35% and 60%, and mortality by 15%, 26% and 46% respectively. All three screening strategies had a cost under AU$50,000 per life year gained, which is regarded as the upper limit of acceptable cost-effectiveness in the Australian health system. At AU$12,405 per life year gained and an average lifetime expectancy of 16.084 years, five-yearly colonoscopy screening was the most cost-effective strategy.

Conclusion

The model demonstrates that intensive CRC screening strategies targeting people at increased risk would be cost-effective in the Australian context. Our findings provide evidence that substantial health benefits can be generated from risk-based CRC screening at a relatively modest incremental cost.

The influence of disease risk on the optimal time interval between screens for the early detection of cancer: a mathematical approach

The intervals between screens for the early detection of diseases such as breast and colon cancer suggested by screening guidelines are typically based on the average population risk of disease. With the emergence of ever more biomarkers for cancer risk prediction and the development of personalized medicine, there is a need for risk-specific screening intervals. The interval between successive screens should be shorter with increasing cancer risk. A risk-dependent optimal interval is ideally derived from a cost-effectiveness analysis using a validated simulation model. However, this is time-consuming and costly. We propose a simplified mathematical approach for the exploratory analysis of the implications of risk level on optimal screening interval. We develop a mathematical model of the optimal screening interval for breast cancer screening. We verified the results by programming the simplified model in the MISCAN-Breast microsimulation model and comparing the results. We validated the results by comparing them with the results of a full, published MISCAN-Breast cost-effectiveness model for a number of different risk levels. The results of both the verification and validation were satisfactory. We conclude that the mathematical approach can indicate the impact of disease risk on the optimal screening interval.

Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: the family CARE Randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC.

METHODS

Eligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P < .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents.

CONCLUSION

Remote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.

The mediating role of health professionals' recommendation in the uptake of colorectal cancer testing among older Chinese adults

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of health professionals' recommendations on the relationship between the characteristics of older Chinese adults and the use of colorectal cancer testing. This was a cross-sectional population-based telephone survey. A total of 2004 Chinese adults aged 50 or above were recruited between 2 and 28 May 2007 to complete an anonymous telephone survey. The survey covered demographics, perceived health status and susceptibility to cancer, utilization of complementary medicine, family history of cancer, and cancer screening behaviour. The uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy was 12%, of which only 3.4% had been recommended by health professionals. The effects of gender, a history of serious disease, perceptions related to health status and visiting doctor regularly on the flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy uptake were mediated by a health professional's recommendation. A health professional's recommendation can be a catalyst for the decision of undergoing a colorectal cancer screening test in older adult people, in particular for those who are more health-conscious. As health professionals can play a crucial role in the development of successful population-based colorectal cancer screening program, efforts should be made to facilitate them in making recommendations for colorectal cancer screening to targeted high-risk group.

Fecal immunochemical test accuracy in familial risk colorectal cancer screening

There is little information on fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in familial risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our study assesses FIT accuracy, number needed to scope (NNS) and cost to detect a CRC and an advanced neoplasia (AN) in this setting. We performed a multicentric, prospective, double-blind study of diagnostic tests on individuals with first-degree relatives (FDRs) with CRC submitted to screening colonoscopy. Two stool samples were collected and fecal hemoglobin in the first sample (FIT1) and the highest in both samples (FITmax) were determined. Areas under the curve (AUC) for CRC and AN as well as the best FIT1 and FITmax cutoff value for CRC were determined. At this threshold, NNS and the cost per lesion detected were calculated. A total of 595 individuals were included (one FDR > 60 years, 413; two FDR or one ≤ 60 years, 182). AN and CRC were found in 64 (10.8%) and six (1%) patients, respectively. For CRC diagnosis, FIT1 AUC was 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-0.98] and FITmax AUC was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93-0.97). For AN diagnosis, FIT1 and FITmax AUC were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66-0.82). The best cutoff point for CRC was 115. At this threshold, the NNS to detect a CRC was 5.67 and 7.67, and the cost per CRC was 1,064€ and 1591.33€ on FIT1 and FITmax strategies, respectively. FIT shows high accuracy to detect CRC in familial CRC screening. Performing two tests does not improve diagnostic accuracy, but increases cost and NNS to detect a lesion.

Multicohort models in cost-effectiveness analysis: why aggregating estimates over multiple cohorts can hide useful information

BACKGROUND

Models used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of screening programs may include 1 or many birth cohorts of patients. As many screening programs involve multiple screens over many years for each birth cohort, the actual implementation of screening often involves multiple concurrent recipient cohorts. Consequently, some advocate modeling all recipient cohorts rather than 1 birth cohort, arguing it more accurately represents actual implementation. However, reporting the cost-effectiveness estimates for multiple cohorts on aggregate rather than per cohort will fail to account for any heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness between cohorts. Such heterogeneity may be policy relevant where there is considerable variation in cost-effectiveness between cohorts, as in the case of cancer screening programs with multiple concurrent recipient birth cohorts, each at different stages of screening at any one point in time.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the potential disadvantages of aggregating cost-effectiveness estimates over multiple cohorts, without first considering the disaggregate estimates. Analysis. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of 2 alternative cervical screening tests in a multicohort model and compare the aggregated and per-cohort estimates. We find instances in which the policy choices suggested by the aggregate and per-cohort results differ. We use this example to illustrate a series of potential disadvantages of aggregating CEA estimates over cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent recommendations that CEAs should consider the cost-effectiveness of more than just a single cohort appear justified, but the aggregation of estimates across multiple cohorts into a single estimate does not.

Colorectal cancer screening in patients at moderately increased risk due to family history

Patients with a positive family history have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and, in many countries, more intensive screening regimens, sometimes involving the use of colonoscopy as opposed to sigmoidoscopy or fecal occult blood testing, are recommended. This review discusses current screening guidelines in the United States and other countries, data on the magnitude of CRC risk in the presence of a family history and the efficacy of recommended screening programs, as well as ancillary issues such as compliance, cost-effectiveness and accuracy of family history ascertainment. We focus on the relatively common “sporadic” family histories of CRC, which typically imparts a mild to moderate elevation in the risk for CRC development in the proband. Defined familial syndromes associated with extremely high risks of CRC, such as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis, require specialized management approaches and are beyond the scope of this article. We will also not discuss colonoscopic surveillance in patients with a personal history of adenomas or CRC.

Adding familial risk assessment to faecal occult blood test can increase the effectiveness of population-based colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The Dutch Health Council recently recommended the introduction of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme by faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for individuals aged 55-75 at population risk of CRC. Individuals at an increased familial CRC risk (≥ 2 times population risk) should be identified at a younger age, so they and their relatives can receive earlier, more intensive surveillance instead of FOBT.

AIMS

To determine the percentage of participants with a positive FOBT in a CRC screening programme with an increased familial CRC risk.

METHODS

In a population-based study, 10,569 individuals aged 50-75 received an FOBT. Individuals with a positive FOBT were invited for colonoscopy and familial risk assessment. Participants with an average familial CRC risk were compared to those with an increased risk. Increased familial CRC risk was defined as a cumulative lifetime risk of CRC of at least 10%.

RESULTS

Of 6001 participants, 430 had a positive FOBT, of whom 324 (63% males; mean age 63 years) completed colonoscopy and familial risk assessment. CRC (n=22) and/or advanced adenomas (n=122) were found in 133 participants. Familial CRC risk was increased in 6% of participants with a positive FOBT. No significant differences were found between participants with an average versus an increased familial CRC risk.

CONCLUSION

Six percent of participants with a positive FOBT had an increased familial CRC risk. Identifying at-risk participants enables them and their relatives to undergo regular colonoscopies. Adding familial risk assessment to FOBT screening may thus prevent a substantial number of CRCs.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in high-risk Spanish patients: use of a validated model to inform public policy

BACKGROUND

The European Community has made a commitment to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but regional considerations may affect the design of national screening programs. We developed a decision analytic model tailored to a pilot screening program for high-risk persons in Spain with the aim of informing public policy decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We constructed a decision analytic Markov model based on our validated model of CRC screening that reflected CRC epidemiology and costs in persons with first-degree relatives with CRC in Aragón, Spain, and superimposed colonoscopy every 5 or 10 years from ages 40 to 80 years. The pilot program's preliminary clinical results and our modeling results were presented to regional health authorities.

RESULTS

In the model, without screening, 88 CRC cases occurred per 1,000 persons from age 40 to 85 years. In the base case, screening reduced this by 72% to 77% and gained 0.12 discounted life years per person. Screening every 10 years was cost saving, and screening every 5 years versus every 10 years cost 7,250 euros per life year gained. Based on these savings, 36 to 39 euros per person per year could go toward operating costs while maintaining a neutral budget. If screening costs doubled, screening remained highly cost-effective but no longer cost saving. These results contributed to the health authorities' decision to expand the pilot program to the entire region in 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of persons with CRC may be cost saving in public systems like that of Spain. Decision analytic modeling tailored to regional considerations can inform public policy decisions.

IMPACT

Tailored decision analytic modeling can inform regional policy decisions on cancer screening.